MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915635651 · doi:10.1007/s10546-019-00433-8

UDINEE: Evaluation of Multiple Models with Data from the JU2003 Puff Releases in Oklahoma City. Part I: Comparison of Observed and Predicted Concentrations

2019· article· en· W2915635651 on OpenAlex
M.A. Hernández-Ceballos, Steven R. Hanna, Roberto Bianconi, Roberto Bellasio, Thomas Mazzola, Joseph Chang, S. Andronopoulos, Patrick Armand, Najat Benbouta, Peter Čarný, Nils Ek, Eva Fojcíková, Richard Fry, Lois Huggett, Piotr Kopka, Michał Korycki, Ľudovít Lipták, Sarah Millington, Sean Miner, S. Potempski, G. Tinarelli, Silvia Trini Castelli, Stefano Galmarini

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBoundary-Layer Meteorology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)
FundersEuropean CommissionJoint Research CentreDefense Threat Reduction AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDirectorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
KeywordsAtmospheric dispersion modelingEnvironmental scienceDispersion (optics)MeteorologyTRACERJoint (building)Atmospheric sciencesEngineeringCivil engineeringAir pollutionGeographyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a complex environment such as an urban area, accurate prediction of the atmospheric dispersion of airborne harmful materials such as radioactive substances is necessary for establishing response actions and assessing risk or damage. Given the variety of urban atmospheric dispersion models available, evaluation and inter-comparison exercises are vital for assessing quantitatively and qualitatively their capabilities and differences. To that end, the European Commission/Directorate General Joint Research Centre with support from the European Commission/Directorate General-Migration and Home Affairs, and with the contribution of the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, launched the Urban Dispersion INternational Evaluation Exercise (UDINEE) project. Within UDINEE, nine atmospheric dispersion models are evaluated and intercompared. Sulphur hexafluoride concentrations from puffs released near the ground during the Joint Urban 2003 (JU2003) field experiment are used in UDINEE to evaluate atmospheric dispersion models. The JU2003 experiment is chosen because UDINEE aims at the better understanding of modelling capabilities for radiological dispersal devices in urban areas, and the neutrally-buoyant puff releases performed in the JU2003 experiment are the closest scenario to this purpose. The present study evaluates the capability of models at simulating the presence and concentration levels of the tracer at sampling locations. The fraction of predicted concentrations and time-integrated concentrations within a factor-of-two of observations are less than 0.36 and 0.4 respectively. The analysis reveals an improvement in the performance of models by using time-varying inflow conditions. Since the simulation of the dispersion of puff release is particularly challenging, the results of UDINEE could constitute a benchmark for future model developments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it